Studios Rethinking Newspaper Advertising

Why? Well, it's simple, really: "The only people who read newspapers are
older and elitist." While the statement (made by "a Hollywood source")
initially offended the crap out of me (youngish, totally
woman-of-the-people newspaper reader over here), I actually think it
might be true. Think about it: studios are paying about $100,000/ad
to run full-color, full-page advertisements in the LosAngeles Times and The New York Times. And for what? The Dukes of Hazzard and Duece freaking Bigalow. While I resist the "older and elitist" labels, the fact is that the source has a point: no one reading The New York Times is going to be moved by an ad for The Wedding Crashers.
That's not to say those people won't go see the movies we're talking about, but they're
much more likely to be motivated by a positive review in the paper than
by a big color photo of Vince Vaughn (oddly attractive though he may be).

With studios looking to cut spending during these lean times, the real victims of this realization are the newspapers. If The New York Times
places only 50% of the ads they usually sell for their "Fall Movies"
section, that's a massive, massive hole. Where are they going to find
that million dollars? Of course, that's not for the studios to figure
out-- they're pocketing the cash. Don't look now, but it looks like
this might actually be a very smart move.